Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1025 of 1979, decided its on 23rd December, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑12‑1979 in S. A. O. No. 70 of 1972).
‑‑ Art. 185‑Petitioner unable to convince Court of concurrent view taken by Courts below being erroneous‑Interference with such view not justified.
Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing : 23rd December, 1979.
‑The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 10th of December, 1979, by which. S. A. O. No. 70 of 1972 was dismissed.
The petitioners were in possession of a portion of property bearing No. SE‑11‑26A‑S‑68A, situate close to Ahata Ghulab Bibi, in Sarai Sultan, Lahore, under a rent note dated 7th of February, 1974, executed by them in favour of the respondents. The rent fixed in the note was Rs. 300 p. m. The respondents, on 22nd of January, 1971, applied for their ejectment on the ground of non‑payment of rent for the period from February 1968 to February, 1969 and June, 1970 to January, 1971. The petitioners resisted the application on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them; and further took the plea that it was the property of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and vested in the Federal Government under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1961, and, therefore, it was exempt from the application of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller, without framing an issue, decided the controversy as to the existence of the relationship in the affirmative by order dated 3rd of April, 1971, and further fixed the hearing on the 6th of May, 1961, for consideration as to the deposit of the rent and on that date ordered their ejectment as the default was admitted.
This order was upheld by the District Judge, Lahore, in first appeal and so also by the High Court in Second Appeal. The technical objection was repelled by the first appellate Court on the short ground that the word landlord' in the definition clause of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, included a person who, for the time being, was entitled to receive rent in respect of any building which clearly covered the case of the respondents who had admittedly inducted the petitioners into the premises and received the rent. It was further held that the petitioners were estoppel from denying their relationship of landlord and tenant under section 116 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, the Rent Controller was justified in deciding this issue in favour of the respondent. The High Court while upholding the Rent Controller's order further reached the conclusion that the facts brought on record were insufficient to establish that the property had vested in the Federal Government under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance.
The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to convince us that the concurrent view taken by the Courts below was erroneous and we see no justification to interfere. Accordingly, the petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer